Validation of Revenue Funded DRAFT - Scottish Futures … · Validation of Revenue Funded ... managing changes to the project during the tender process. ... these costs will be based

DRAFT

Validation of Revenue Funded Projects:

Pre-New Project Request Key Stage Review

(hub DBFM KSR 1 - Pre-NPR)

October 2014

559

DRAFT

Revenue Funded Projects Pre-NPR Key Stage Review

CONTENTS

Notes to the Reviewer ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2. Timing ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Process .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Further information ................................................................................................................ 4

Section 1: Project Outline ....................................................................................................................... 5

Section 2: Project Requirements ............................................................................................................ 6

Section 3: Readiness ............................................................................................................................... 8

Section 4: Affordability ......................................................................................................................... 12

Section 5: Value for Money................................................................................................................... 15

Section 6: Compliance ........................................................................................................................... 16

Project Sponsor

E.g. SGHD, SFC, TS

Procuring Authority

E.g. LA, College, Health Board

Project Team

Scottish Government (SG)

560

DRAFT

Notes to the Reviewer

1.1. Background It is a condition of Scottish Government (SG) funding support that all projects in the revenue funded programme are, in addition to any existing project approvals processes, externally validated by SFT. SFT undertakes validation by carrying out Key Stage Reviews (KSRs) of projects at key stages of a procurement. The KSR process is designed to support the successful delivery of revenue funded projects whether delivered through the non-profit distributing (NPD) model or the hub initiative as Design Build Finance and Maintain (DBFM) projects by providing an assessment of the readiness of a project before it moves on to the next stage in the procurement process.

1.2. Timing This review is required to be completed in advance of the project submitting a New Project Request to hubCo.

The review should be carried out by the member of the Scottish Futures Trust team who normally provides support to the relevant project (the Reviewer). The Reviewer must agree the precise timing of the review and submission of SFT’s report with the Project Sponsor and/or SG to integrate with the other project approvals processes.

In the run up to each review point, the Reviewer will inform and keep up-to-date the SFT validation team of the estimated timetable for carrying out the KSR. The validation team will arrange for a member of the SFT’s senior management team (SMT) to scrutinise the list completed by the Reviewer before it can be submitted to the Project Sponsor and/or SG. The Reviewer should thereafter liaise directly with the allocated SMT member and must return a countersigned copy of the list to the Validation Team upon SMT sign-off.

1.3. Process The Reviewer must familiarise him/herself of the requirements of the checklist and consider which elements s/he can answer on the basis of existing knowledge of the project and identify what additional information is required in relation to the project in order to complete the remaining sections. The Reviewer should, at the earliest opportunity, explain to the Procuring Authority / Project Team what additional information s/he will require, in what form and by when in order to complete the review within the agreed timescales.

The review is not intended to be a “stop-start” process and the Reviewer should refer to the list throughout each delivery stage so that all sections of the checklist can be completed without delay to the project. The process involves the Reviewer completing this pro-forma list on the basis of information obtained in his/her day-to-day dealings with the project, considering whether in his or her view the project is ready to proceed to the next stage of procurement and making recommendations as to what actions may be required to achieve appropriate state of readiness. No formal submission, as such, will be required from the Procuring Authority, but the project team will be required to provide the Reviewer with information to allow him/her to complete the list and compile his/her report.

561

DRAFT

Once completed by the Reviewer, the list and draft report should be submitted to the allocated SMT member for scrutiny. The Reviewer in consultation with the SMT member must agree what follow-up will be required to any recommendations made, in what form and in what timescales before being issued to the relevant Project Sponsor and/or SG and copied to the Procuring Authority. The relevant Project Sponsor and/or SG will thereafter, as part of its overall sign-off process, determine whether and on what basis the project should proceed to the next stage taking into consideration any recommendations made in the KSR report. The Reviewer should liaise directly with the Project Sponsor and Procuring Authority as may be required to address any queries arising from the KSR report or recommendations.

1.4. Further information Please contact the Validation Team for further information on the KSR process. Queries relating to the revenue funded programme requirements should be directed to the SFT Finance Team.

The Reviewer is responsible for updating the SMT member with progress made in accordance with the agreed follow-up plan.

562

DRAFT

Section 1: Project Outline SFT Reviewer (Primary Reviewer)

SFT Secondary Reviewer (SMT Member)

Project title

Brief project description

Outline of scope of services in project (please identify the services and who will provide those services)

Planned NPR Issue Date

Project Timetable

Project Contact Details

Project Sponsor /SG Responsible Officer

(name & contact details)

Project Authority Responsible Officer


Project Director/Manager (name & contact details)

Principal legal, technical and financial advisers (firm/company & name of main contact)

563

DRAFT

Section 2: Project Requirements The objective of this section is to ensure that the project has received required approvals and that the scope is clear, stable and deliverable. Arrangements must be in place for anticipating, identifying and managing changes to the project during the tender process.

Question Yes/No Comments

1. Has an outline business case for the project been approved (i) at the appropriate level within the Procuring Authority and (ii) by the relevant project Sponsor(s) / SG department(s)?

2. Have all issues arising from the OBC sign-off and/or design review(s) been addressed (conditions or recommendations on scope/specification/design)?

3. Have there been any changes to the project scope since the OBC approval and have these received required approvals?

4. Are the specification and space standards sustainable in accordance with relevant sector / programme level benchmarks?

5. Have the options for collaboration and joint service delivery been considered?

564

DRAFT

6. Are any aspects of the project scope intentionally unresolved because the Project Sponsor is actively seeking to discuss alternative approaches with hubCo during Stage 1 development and have any anticipated implications in terms of, for example, affordability and timetable been assessed?

7. Please explain the approach that the Procuring Authority is taking in presenting its design and specification requirements to hubCo (e.g. use of exemplar or reference designs and whether these are sufficiently advanced).

8. Are there control mechanisms and an approval processes in place for identifying and managing changes to scope, costs and timescales during the procurement process?

565

DRAFT

Section 3: Readiness The key objective of this section is to ensure that the arrangements for steering, resourcing and managing the project are robust and that the project is deliverable. This is intended demonstrate that the project has firm foundations on which to proceed, and that the project is operating within a clear decision making structure.


9. Is there a project management plan and resource strategy in place that take account of approvals processes, site acquisition and enabling works, etc.?

10. Has a robust stakeholder management plan been developed including statutory consultations and external approvals?

11. Have all consultations been carried out and associated approvals been obtained to allow the project to proceed to NPR and have concerns/risks raised been addressed?

12. Are robust project governance arrangements in place that provide for effective delegation and decision making throughout the project development and delivery stages and do these arrangements have the support of all Procuring Authorities?

566

DRAFT

13. Is a dedicated project team with appropriate experience and expertise (including NPD/PPP procurement experience) in place and does the team have sufficient resources for all stages of the procurement? Have clear roles and responsibilities for and within the project team (and between the project team and external advisers) been established including consideration of any advisory input, appropriate reporting lines and budgets with reference to benchmarks?

14. Has all necessary documentation including background project information been collated and is it ready to be made available to hubCo? Such information will include (where available) planning development briefs, details of any off-site requirements, room data sheets, existing service level agreements, detailed service and performance requirements.

15. Have external project advisors signed off all key documents / information?

16. Does the Procuring Authority have a robust land/site strategy (dealing with e.g. acquisition, title issues, ground conditions, surveys enabling works)? Please provide an update on the current status of land/title/planning matters. Does the Project Sponsor have a strategy in place to manage the impact of any outstanding matters on the project timetable and affordability?

567

DRAFT

17. Does the Procuring Authority have good title to all required land?

18. Is a comprehensive risk management plan in place for the delivery of the project?

19. Is a mechanism in place for reviewing and updating the risk register and risk management plan?

20. Is the timetable attainable in the context of the project resources and hubCo processes?

Has appropriate consideration been given to the following matters (to the extent applicable) how these will be managed throughout the procurement:

21. - the scope, cost and timing of any enabling works that require to be carried out to support the effective construction and operation of the facilities;

22. - the interface between FM services to be included within the project and those for which the Procuring Authority will retain responsibility and the interface between design and the delivery of FM services (e.g. cleaning) and risks (e.g. energy consumption, security) retained by the Procuring Authority;

23. - the impact of the project on staff (including potential impact of TUPE legislation);

568

DRAFT

24. - the delivery of equipment and the Procuring Authority’s IT requirements within the new facilities;

25. - decant from existing facilities and migration to new facilities and disposal of residual assets;

26. - termination/variation of any existing contractual arrangements related to existing facilities.

569

DRAFT

Section 4: Affordability The key objective of this section is to allow the affordability position of the project to be considered and tested. The affordability target for the project should be realistic and robust before releasing the NPR to hubCo and in accordance with revenue funded programme requirements.

Please complete the following project affordability table1:

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Construction cost (nominal cumulative)

Design fees (nominal cumulative)

hub development costs2 (nominal cumulative)

Sub-hubCo costs (in construction) (nominal cumulative)

Hard FM costs (real per annum)

In-house service costs (for services not included in the hubCo contract)

Lifecycle costs (real cumulative)

Sub-hubCo costs (in operations) (real per annum)

Operational Term (years)

Percentage of unitary charge indexation

Swap rate3

Unitary charge

1 It is expected that these costs will be based on internally generated estimates pre-NPR 2 Including success fees 3 Including any buffer

570

DRAFT

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

(nominal year 1 of operations)

Unitary Charge (NPV)

SG funding support (nominal year 1 of operations)

SG Funding Support (NPV)


27. Are you satisfied that the project is affordable (including associated enabling capital costs, unitary charge contributions and other ongoing operational costs (e.g. utilities, soft FM services)?

28. Have sensitivities been applied in assessing the affordability of the project and is an appropriate allowance in place to absorb reasonable cost movements?

29. Have any changes been made to the cost and funding assumptions (both revenue and capital) contained in the approved outline business case for the project and do these changes have the required level of approval (i) within the Procuring Authority and (ii) from the relevant Project Sponsor(s)?

571

DRAFT

30. Do the costs assumptions contained within the outline business case (or revised and approved cost assumptions, if applicable) remain accurate and deliverable? Has this been verified by the Procuring Authority’s advisers? Indicate relevant benchmarks that have been used by the Procuring Authority and/or its advisers.

31. Has an agreement on principles of commitment to the project and sharing of costs amongst all proposed occupiers of the buildings been put in place?

32. Does the Procuring Authority intend to make any capital contributions to the Sub-hubCo during the project? Provide details (including amount, proportion of total funding requirement and proposed timing). Does the amount of the capital contribution include allowance for associated financing fees etc?

572

DRAFT

Section 5: Value for Money The key objective of this section is to ensure that programme / project level VfM drivers and ongoing performance of hubCo have been considered. A VfM proposal should be expected before releasing the NPR to hubCo. Please refer to relevant Value for Money guidance4.


33. Has the Procuring Authority assessed the requirements for demonstrating VfM in accordance with SFT VFM Guidance?

34. Has the Procuring Authority demonstrated continuing efforts to discharge its obligation (as detailed in the SG conditions of funding letter dated 22 March 2011 and/or the outline business case approval) to minimise capital and operating costs by reference to the development of the design and specification within the agreed project scope?

35. Have steps been agreed with hubCo for the purposes of demonstrating VFM as part of the Stage 1 return?

36. Are the latest Track Record Performance Test (if available) and the previous KPI report satisfactory?

37. Is hubCo able to comply with the project requirements and is it likely to deliver the project objectives, and add value to the project outcomes?

4 Value for Money Assessment Guidance: Capital Programmes and Projects (updated October 2011) and SFT’s Supplementary Guidance for projects in £2.5bn Revenue Funded Investment Programme (October 2011)

573

DRAFT

Section 6: Compliance The key objective of this section is to test that project has considered and adopted procurement best practice.


38. Have all derogations been signed off by SFT?

574

DRAFT

Is the project ready to proceed to the next stage?

(*Delete as applicable)

Yes.*

Yes , subject to recommendations below*

No, due to reasons outlined below.*

Reasons / Recommended actions: To be completed by:

Signature of Primary Reviewer Signature of Secondary Reviewer

Date: Date:

Procuring Authority Declaration I confirm that I am not aware of any information that would materially change the assessment and review of the project.

Name and Position: Date and Signature:

575

DRAFT

SFT follow up action: Reporting frequency / deadline: Date of completion: Signature of Secondary Reviewer on completion:

576

DRAFT


Pre- Stage 1 Approval

Key Stage Review (hub DBFM KSR2 - Pre-Stage 1)

October 2014

577

DRAFT

Revenue Funded Projects Pre-Stage 1 Key Stage Review

CONTENTS

Notes to the Reviewer ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2. Timing ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Process .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4. Further information ................................................................................................................ 4

1.5. Post review .............................................................................................................................. 4


Section 2: KSR Update ............................................................................................................................. 6


Section 4: Readiness ............................................................................................................................. 10



Section 7: Commercial .......................................................................................................................... 15


Project Sponsor

E.g. SGHD, SFC, TS

Procuring Authority


Project Team


578

DRAFT


1.1. Background It is a condition of Scottish Government (SG) funding support that all projects in the revenue funded programme are, in addition to any existing project approvals processes, externally validated by SFT. SFT undertakes validation by carrying out Key Stage Reviews (KSRs) of projects at key stages of procurement. The KSR process is designed to support the successful delivery of revenue funded projects whether delivered through the non-profit distributing (NPD) model or the hub initiative as Design Build Finance and Maintain (DBFM) projects by providing a stand-back assessment of the readiness of a project before it moves on to the next stage in the procurement process.

1.2. Timing This review is required to be completed in advance of the Stage 1 submission being submitted for approval by the Procuring Authority.


In the run up to each review point, the Reviewer will inform and keep up-to-date the SFT validation team of the estimated timetable for carrying out the KSR. The validation team will arrange for a member of the SFT’s senior management team (SMT) to scrutinise the list completed by the Reviewer before it can be submitted to the Project Sponsor and/or SG. The Reviewer should thereafter liaise directly with the allocated SMT member and must return a countersigned copy of the list to the Validation Team upon SMT sign-off. The Reviewer should discuss arrangements with the allocated SMT member and provide a verbal briefing if requested in advance of review so that if required necessary background information can be made available.



579

DRAFT



1.5. Post review Once the review document has been agreed with the Procuring Authority a copy of the final document (preferably in Word -format) must be submitted to SFT validation team together with an estimate of timing of the next review.


580

DRAFT

Section 1: Project Outline








Project title


Outline of scope of services in project (please identify services and who will provide those services)

Planned Stage 1 Approval Date

Project Timetable

581

DRAFT

Section 2: KSR Update

A) Please provide an update in respect of any outstanding Pre-NPR KSR recommendations and provide a reason for delay.

Recommended actions: To be completed by: Status:

B) If any of the agreed KSR follow-up actions remain outstanding please restate these here and provide reason for delay.

SFT follow up actions: Reporting requirement: Status/Update:

582

DRAFT

Section 3: Project Requirements The key objective of this section is to ensure that the proposed solution has been developed in sufficient technical detail, minimising the need for any change in the run-up to financial close and that the Procuring Authorities have considered all retained risks.


1. Have there been any changes to the scope of the project since the NPR was launched and, if so, what has been their impact on the Stage 1 proposal?

2. - Have these changes been signed off by the Project Sponsor?

3. What is the proposed solution, how has it been evaluated and is the Procuring Authority satisfied that it delivers the project objectives, benefits and outcomes?

4. Is the technical solution deliverable and does it meet expected sustainability standards? Has it been signed off by external advisers to the project?

Please briefly describe the Procuring Authority’s position in relation to the following matters and confirm that the Procuring Authority’s approach has been reviewed following the Stage 1 Submission:

5. - the scope, cost and timing of any enabling works that require to be carried out to support the effective construction and operation of the facilities;

583

DRAFT

6. - the scope and interface between FM services to be included within the project and those for which the Procuring Authority will retain responsibility;

7. - the interface between design and the delivery of FM services (e.g. cleaning) and risks (e.g. energy consumption, security) retained by the authority;

8. - the impact of the project on staff (including potential impact of TUPE legislation);


10. - sustainability and delivery of community benefits;

11. - decant from existing facilities, migration to new facilities, disposal of residual assets and termination/variation of any existing contractual arrangements related to the existing facilities;

12. - any conditions or recommendations on scope/specification/design identified in the outline business case approval or previous KSRs.

584

DRAFT

13. Is the clarity over the interface (during both construction and operations) between the works and services within the project and the Procuring Authority’s other facilities and services obligations (e.g. impact on use of adjoining facilities and service delivery during construction phase) and is the Procuring Authority satisfied that the interface issues described above can be resolved in a manner that will satisfy its operational and functional requirements and deliver the project outcomes?

585

DRAFT

Section 4: Readiness The key objective of this section is to ensure that the commercial issues have been sufficiently tied down to ensure that the project is affordable and deliverable.


14. Are there any changes to the governance arrangements, project resourcing or budgets that are required for Stage 2?

15. Is there any update on key risks?

- Have mitigation strategies been adopted?

16. Is a deliverable land and planning strategy in place which includes details of outstanding surveys, acquisition activities and remedial/enabling works?

17. If this is a health hub project resulting in surplus land, does the Procuring Authority have a plan in place to deal with any surplus land receipts?

18. Have statutory and stakeholder consultations been carried out?

- Have any significant objections been dealt with?

586

DRAFT

Section 5: Affordability The key objective of this section is to assess the certainty of the stated affordability position of the project, and to highlight any areas that lack certainty.

1) Please complete the following project affordability table below covering the duration of the contract period applicable to your project (25 or 30 years

etc) and provide an outline of any key assumptions1:

OBC (£m) NPR Stage1 Stage2











Swap rate3

Unitary charge


587

DRAFT







19. Please outline reasons for any major cost movements between the proposal and pre-NPR cost estimates together with any key assumptions, exclusions, prime and provisional sums included in the proposal.

20. Is there a plan in place for how the risks associated with cost assumptions will be managed during Stage2?

21. Has a review by the Technical Advisers of the Stage 1 Pricing Report been completed and have matters arising been resolved?

22. Does the Procuring Authority have clarity over all outstanding technical and design issues and have they evaluated their impact on the deliverability and cost of the project?

588

DRAFT

23. Have the Stage 1 and forecast Stage 2 affordability positions been formally signed off by SFT, the Procuring Authority and the Project Sponsor?

589

DRAFT

Section 6: Value for Money The key objective of this section is to ensure that the achievability, viability and desirability of the solution and the funding route have been reviewed. Please refer to relevant Value for Money guidance4.


24. Please demonstrate how the authority intends to drive value for money through “Effective Delivery”.

[Response required only to the extent that the position has changed since Pre-NPR KSR]

25. Have any changes to scope and procurement options since the Pre-NPR KSR been assessed and is there an impact on the delivery of value for money because of these changes?


4 Value for Money Assessment Guidance: Capital Programmes and Projects (updated October 2011) and SFT’s Supplementary Guidance for projects in £2.5bn Revenue Funded Investment Programme (October 2011)

590

DRAFT

Section 7: Commercial The key objective of this section is to ensure that the commercial issues have been sufficiently tied down to ensure that the project is affordable and deliverable.


27. Has a realistic programme been produced by hubCo (and agreed with their funders) for the various due diligence processes required to reach financial close?

28. What, if any, key commercial issues remain outstanding and how are the implications for the project programme and affordability position to be managed?

29. Please confirm the status of the Procuring Authority’s title investigations, and whether a list of disclosed title conditions, and the impact of these conditions, has been agreed with hubCo.

591

DRAFT

Section 8: Compliance The key objective of this section is to test that the project has considered and adopted procurement best practice and that the project sponsors are aware of any outstanding commercial issues.


30. Has the Procuring Authority adopted relevant standard documentation?

31. Has the Procuring Authority provided a copy of the schedule of amendments provided as part of the Stage 1 proposals and have all derogations been signed off by SFT?

32. Is the proposal in accordance with the agreed method statements?

592

DRAFT



Yes.*





Date: Date:



593

DRAFT


594

DRAFT


Pre- Stage 2 Approval Key Stage Review

(hub DBFM KSR3 - Pre-Stage 2)

October 2014

595

DRAFT

Revenue Funded Projects Pre-Stage 2 Key Stage Review

CONTENTS


1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2. Timing ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Process .................................................................................................................................... 3


1.5. Post review .............................................................................................................................. 4



Section 3: Resourcing .............................................................................................................................. 7

Section 4: Affordability ........................................................................................................................... 9

Section 5: Risk Management ................................................................................................................ 12



Project Sponsor

E.g. SGHD, SFC, TS

Procuring Authority


Project Team


596

DRAFT


1.1. Background It is a condition of Scottish Government (SG) funding support that all projects in the revenue funded programme are, in addition to any existing project approvals processes, externally validated by SFT. SFT undertakes validation by carrying out Key Stage Reviews (KSRs) of projects at key stages of procurement. The KSR process is designed to support the successful delivery of revenue funded projects whether delivered through the non-profit distributing (NPD) model or the hub initiative as Design Build Finance and Maintain (DBFM) projects by providing an assessment of the readiness of a project before it moves on to the next stage in the procurement process.

1.2. Timing This review is required to be completed in advance of the Stage 2 submission being submitted for approval by the Procuring Authority.


In the run up to each review point, the Reviewer will inform and keep up-to-date the SFT validation team of the estimated timetable for carrying out the KSR. The validation team will arrange for a member of the SFT’s senior management team (SMT) to scrutinise the list completed by the Reviewer before it can be submitted to the Project Sponsor and/or SG. The Reviewer should thereafter liaise directly with the allocated SMT member and must return a countersigned copy of the list to the Validation Team upon SMT sign-off. The Reviewer should discuss arrangements with the allocated SMT member and provide a verbal briefing if requested in advance of review so that if required necessary background information can be made available.



597

DRAFT



1.5. Post review Once the review document has been agreed with the Procuring Authority a copy of the final document (preferably in Word -format) must be submitted to SFT validation team.

The Reviewer is responsible for updating the SMT member (or where SFT has a seat on the SPV Board, the relevant SFT representative) with progress made in accordance with the agreed follow-up plan.

598

DRAFT



Project title




Project Timetable








599

DRAFT


A) Please provide an update in respect of any outstanding Pre-Stage1 KSR recommendations and provide a reason for delay.




600

DRAFT

Section 3: Resourcing The key objective of this section is to ensure that the necessary resources ahead of the construction and operational stages of their projects are in place to be able to support and manage the contract going forward.


1. Have governance, project management arrangements and a resourcing strategy been put in place to follow financial close, covering the construction and commissioning and operational phases?

- Do job descriptions and the recruitment strategy consider, where applicable, the needs of the Procuring Authority in relation to the following:

2. - Performance monitoring;

3. - Life cycle expenditure;

4. - Safety inspection certification;

5. - Disaster management planning;

6. - Insurance renewals;

7. - User satisfaction surveys etc.;

8. - Post-occupancy evaluation;

9. - Refinancing;

601

DRAFT

10. - Major incident planning;

11. - Change requests;

12. - Benchmarking;

13. - Interface issues between the services provided by the Procuring Authority and any external service provider;

14. - Use of external advisers.

15. Have steps been taken to ensure continuity of personnel and sharing of knowledge between phases?

16. How will performance monitoring be undertaken and how will it link back to the payment mechanism, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and project objectives?

17. Is a process in place for how project liaison and stakeholder communication will be undertaken?

18. Are all required joint occupation and interface agreements in place and what steps have been undertaken to ensure that the service interfaces will operate in practice?

602

DRAFT

Section 4: Affordability The key objective of this section is to confirm that the final proposal is affordable and provides Value for Money.

1) Please complete the following project affordability table below covering the duration of the contract period applicable to your project (25 or 30 years

etc) and provide an outline of any key assumptions1:












Swap rate3

Unitary charge


603

DRAFT







19. Please outline reasons for any major cost movements between the Stage 2 proposal and pre-Stage1 cost estimates together with any key assumptions, exclusions, prime and provisional sums included in the proposal.

20. Has a review by the Technical Advisers of the Stage 2 Pricing Report been completed and have matters arising been resolved?

21. Has a review of hubCo’s financial model been carried and have input assumptions been checked and verified to be in line with available benchmarks by project advisors?

Please describe the steps that the Procuring Authority and advisers have taken or will take to assess the sufficiency/efficiency/competitiveness of proposals in relation to the following:

22. - capital cost inputs

604

DRAFT

23. - SPV average annual operating costs

24. - SPV project development costs

25. - lifecycle maintenance fund and profile

26. - tax efficiency

27. - subordinated debt return

28. Does the project remain affordable taking account of the total project costs and has the final position been formally signed off by the Procuring Authority and the Project Sponsor?

29. Is the proposed funding route deliverable and does a protocol exist to track funding rates and their implications on affordability throughout final negotiations?

605

DRAFT

Section 5: Risk Management The key objective of this section is to ensure that commercial issues have been sufficiently tied down and that the project team has a robust risk management strategy in place


30. Have the key risks in relation to successful completion of the project and the risks in relation to realising long term benefits been identified and are mitigation measures in place?

31. Does the project team have the relevant authority, sign-offs and delegated powers in place to close the project?

32. Are there any outstanding commercial issues and have the risk associated with these been assessed?

33. Have hubCo, its sub-contractors and funders singed off the project proposals?

34. Has a programme been produced by hubCo (and agreed with their funders) for the various due diligence processes required to reach financial close and is it realistic and synchronised with the overall projected timescale to reach financial close?

606

DRAFT

Section 6: Value for Money The key objective of this section is to ensure that the achievability, viability and desirability of the solution and the funding route have been reviewed.


35. Have the payment mechanism and related notice thresholds been tested and calibrated to ensure best value and to incentivise good long term performance of the contract and have these been fully signed off by all contract parties?

36. Has the authority taken steps to comply with its obligation (as detailed in the SG conditions of funding letter dated 22 March 2011 and/or the outline business case approval) to minimise capital and operating costs by reference to design and specification development within the agreed project scope?

37. Have Procuring Authority and its financial advisers considered the competitiveness and deliverability of financing proposals? Do these comply with SFT guidance on managing financing aspect of projects?

38. Is the project IRR compliant with the contract in terms of:

A. Levels; and B. Sharing?


607

DRAFT

Section 7: Compliance The key objective of this section is to test that the project has considered and adopted procurement best practice and that the project sponsors are aware of any outstanding commercial issues.


40. Has the Procuring Authority adopted relevant standard documentation and have all derogations have been signed off by SFT?

Specifically, has agreement been reached in relation to the following matters:

41. - vandalism risk

42. - warning notice and termination triggers

43. - payment mechanism

44. - TUPE and pensions

45. - funders direct agreement

46. Have the proposed lenders to the project signed off the project documentation and agreements?

47. Has the ESA95 treatment been signed off by Scottish Government?

608

DRAFT



Yes.*





Date: Date:



609

DRAFT


610

Validation of Revenue Funded Projects

Pre-NPR Submission Key Stage Review

Scotland’s Schools for the Future Projects

October 2014

Project Name: _________________________

611

Revenue Funded Projects Pre-NPR Approval Key Stage Review

CONTENTS


1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2. Timing ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Process .................................................................................................................................... 3








Project Sponsor

E.g. SGHD, SFC, TS

Procuring Authority


Project Team


612


1.1. Background It is a condition of Scottish Government (SG) funding support that all projects in the revenue funded programme are, in addition to any existing project approvals processes, externally validated by SFT. SFT undertakes validation by carrying out Key Stage Reviews (KSRs) of projects at key stages during procurement. The KSR process is designed to support the successful delivery of revenue funded projects whether delivered through the non-profit distributing (NPD) model or the hub initiative as Design, Build, Finance and Maintain (DBFM) projects by providing an assessment of the readiness of a project before it moves on to the next stage in the procurement process.

1.2. Timing This review is required to be completed in advance of a New Project Request being submitted to hubCo by the Procuring Authority.

The review should be carried out by the member of the Scottish Futures Trust team who normally provides support to the relevant project (the Reviewer). The Reviewer must agree the precise timing of the review and submission of SFT’s report with the Project Sponsor and / or SG to integrate with the other project approvals processes.

In the run up to each review point, the Reviewer will inform and keep up-to-date the SFT Validation Team of the estimated timetable for carrying out the KSR. The Validation Team will arrange for a member of the SFT’s Senior Management Team (SMT) to scrutinise the checklist completed by the Reviewer before it can be submitted to the Project Sponsor and / or SG. The Reviewer should thereafter liaise directly with the allocated SMT member and must return a countersigned copy of the checklist to the Validation Team upon SMT sign-off.

1.3. Process The Reviewer must familiarise her/himself of the requirements of the checklist and consider which elements s/he can answer on the basis of existing knowledge of the project and identify what additional information is required in relation to the project in order to complete the remaining sections. The Reviewer should, at the earliest opportunity, explain to the Procuring Authority / Project Team what additional information s/he will require, in what form and by when in order to complete the review within the agreed timescales.

The review is not intended to be a “stop-start” process and the Reviewer should refer to the checklist throughout each delivery stage so that all sections can be completed without delay to the project. The process involves the Reviewer completing this pro-forma checklist on the basis of information obtained in her/his day-to-day dealings with the project, considering whether in his or her view the project is ready to proceed to the next stage of procurement and making recommendations as to what actions may be required to achieve appropriate state of readiness. No formal submission, as such, will be required from the Procuring Authority, but the project team will be required to provide the Reviewer with information to allow her/him to complete the checklist and compile the report.

613

Once completed by the Reviewer, the checklist and draft report should be submitted to the allocated SMT member for scrutiny. The Reviewer in consultation with the SMT member must agree what follow-up will be required to any recommendations made, in what form and in what timescales before being issued to the relevant Project Sponsor and / or SG and copied to the Procuring Authority. The relevant Project Sponsor and / or SG will thereafter, as part of its overall sign-off process, determine whether and on what basis the project should proceed to the next stage taking into consideration any recommendations made in the KSR report. The Reviewer should liaise directly with the Project Sponsor and Procuring Authority as may be required to address any queries arising from the KSR report or recommendations.



614


Gemma Boggs – Schools Programme Director /

Grant Robertson – Associate Director


Barry White – Chief Executive /

Other SMT member – please name

Project Overview

Project title



Hard FM:

Soft FM:

Planned NPR issue date

Project timetable NPR Submission:

Stage 1 Submission / Approval:


Financial Close:

Service Availability:

615


Project Sponsor / SG Responsible Officer (name & contact details)

Ian Mitchell Depute Director, Learning Directorate Scottish Government 20-72 Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ Tel: 0131 244 0954 Email: [email protected]

Project Authority Responsible Officer (name & contact details)



616

mailto:[email protected]

Section 2: Project Requirements The key objective of this section is to ensure that the project scope is clear, stable and deliverable and the required approvals are in place. Arrangements must be in place for anticipating, identifying and managing changes to the project during the tender process.


1. Is the space standard sustainable in accordance with relevant sector / programme level benchmarks?

2. Have the options for collaboration and joint service delivery been considered?

3. Are any aspects of the project scope intentionally unresolved because the Project Sponsor is actively seeking to discuss alternative approaches with hubCo and/or other user groups during Stage 1 development and have any anticipated implications in terms of, for example, affordability and timetable been assessed?

4. Please explain the approach that the Procuring Authority is taking in presenting its design and specification requirements to hubCo (e.g. use of exemplar or reference designs and whether these are sufficiently advanced).

5. Are the appropriate approvals in place given the current stage of procurement? Are there control mechanisms and approval processes in place for identifying and managing changes to scope, costs and timescales during the procurement process?

617

Section 3: Readiness The key objective of this section is to ensure that the arrangements for steering, resourcing and managing the project are robust and that the project is deliverable. This is intended to demonstrate that the project has firm foundations on which to proceed, and that the project is operating within a clear decision making structure.


6. Is there a project management plan and resource strategy in place that take account of approvals processes, site acquisition, enabling works etc.?

7. Has a robust stakeholder management plan been developed including statutory consultations and external approvals? Have all consultations been carried out and associated approvals been obtained to allow the project to proceed to NPR and have concerns / risks raised been addressed?

8. Are robust project governance arrangements in place that provide for effective delegation and decision making throughout the project development and delivery stages?

9. Is a dedicated project team with appropriate experience and expertise (including NPD/PPP procurement experience) in place and does the team have sufficient resources for all stages of the procurement? Have clear roles and responsibilities for and within the project team (and between the project team and external advisers) been established including consideration of any advisory

-

618

input, appropriate reporting lines and budgets with reference to benchmarks?

10. Is the timetable attainable in the context of the project resources and hubCo processes?

11. Has all necessary documentation including background project information been collated and is it ready to be made available to hubCo? Such information may include (amongst others):

- planning development briefs - details of any off-site requirements - details of any utility diversion / works required - room data sheets - existing service level agreements - detailed service requirements - detailed performance requirements - community benefit requirements

12. Have insurance advisors with experience of revenue funded projects been appointed?

13. Does the Procuring Authority have a robust land/site strategy (dealing with e.g. acquisition, title issues, burdens, ground conditions, surveys, enabling works)? Please provide an update on the current status of land/title/planning matters. Does the Project Sponsor have a strategy in place to manage the impact of any outstanding matters on the project timetable and affordability?

619

14. Is a comprehensive risk management plan in place for the delivery of the project? Is a mechanism in place for reviewing and updating the risk register and risk management plan?

Has appropriate consideration been given to the following matters (to the extent applicable) and how these will be managed through the procurement:

15. - the scope, cost and timing of any enabling works that require to be carried out;

16. - the interface between the works within the project and the Procuring Authority’s other facilities and services (e.g. impact on use of adjoining facilities during construction phase);

17. - the interface between FM services to be included within the project and those for which the Procuring Authority will retain responsibility;

18. - the interface between design and the delivery of FM services (e.g. cleaning) and risks (e.g. energy consumption, security) retained by the Procuring Authority;

19. - through early engagement with HR, the impact of the project on staff (including potential impact of TUPE legislation);


620


22. - termination / variation of any existing contractual arrangements related to existing facilities.

621

Section 4: Affordability The key objective of this section is to allow the affordability position of the project to be understood. The affordability target for the project should be realistic and robust before submitting the NPR to hubCo and be in accordance with the revenue funded programme requirements.


£ Notes

hub development costs

Construction costs

Construction phase SPV costs

Hard FM costs (per annum)

Lifecycle costs (per annum)

Operations phase SPV costs (per annum)

Other costs... [please outline]

Please also note the following project costs:

£ Notes

Public sector development costs

Public sector advisory costs


1 It is expected that these costs will be based on internally generated estimates pre-NPR

622


23. Is a robust project budget in place? Is project affordability understood (including associated enabling capital costs and other ongoing operational costs (e.g. utilities, soft FM services)? Is the affordability cap appropriate and in line with programme benchmarks? Is the proportionality of SG funding understood?

24. Does the Procuring Authority intend to make any capital contributions to the sub-hubCo during the project? Provide details (including amount, proportion of total funding requirement and proposed timing).

25. Does the Procuring Authority intend to make an investment in the sub-hubCo? Provide details (including amount, proportion of total investment requirement and proposed timing).

623

Section 5: Value for Money The key objective of this section is to ensure that programme / project level VfM drivers and the performance of hubCo have been considered.


26. Have steps been agreed with hubCo for the purpose of demonstrating VfM in the Stage 1 submission?

624

Section 6: Compliance The key objective of this section is to test that the project has considered and adopted best practice procurement documentation.


27. Have all contract derogations required by the local authority been signed off by SFT?

625



Yes.*





Date: Date:



626


627


Pre-Stage 1 Approval Key Stage Review


October 2014

Project Name: _________________________

628

Revenue Funded Projects Pre-Stage 1 Approval Key Stage Review

CONTENTS

Notes to the Reviewer ................................................................................................................. 3

1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2. Timing ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Process .................................................................................................................................... 3


1.5. Post review .............................................................................................................................. 4

Section 1: Project Outline ............................................................................................................. 5

Section 2: KSR Update .................................................................................................................. 7

Section 3: Project Requirements ................................................................................................... 8

Section 4: Readiness .................................................................................................................. 10

Section 5: Commercial ................................................................................................................ 13

Section 6: Affordability .............................................................................................................. 15

Section 7: Value for Money ........................................................................................................ 18

Section 8: Compliance ................................................................................................................ 19

Project Sponsor

E.g. SGHD, SFC, TS

Procuring Authority


Project Team


629



1.2. Timing This review is required to be completed in advance of the Stage 1 submission being approved by the Procuring Authority.


In the run up to each review point, the Reviewer will inform and keep up-to-date the SFT Validation Team of the estimated timetable for carrying out the KSR. The validation team will arrange for a member of the SFT’s Senior Management Team (SMT) to scrutinise the checklist completed by the Reviewer before it can be submitted to the Project Sponsor and / or SG. The Reviewer should thereafter liaise directly with the allocated SMT member and must return a countersigned copy of the checklist to the Validation Team upon SMT sign-off.


The review is not intended to be a “stop-start” process and the Reviewer should refer to the checklist throughout each delivery stage so that all sections can be completed without delay to the project. The process involves the Reviewer completing this pro-forma checklist on the basis of information obtained in her/his day-to-day dealings with the project, considering whether in his or her view the project is ready to proceed to the next stage of procurement and making recommendations as to what actions may be required to achieve appropriate state of readiness. No formal submission, as such, will be required from the Procuring Authority, but the project team will be required to provide the Reviewer with information to allow her/him to complete the checklist and compile the report.

630



1.5. Post review Once the review document has been agreed with the Procuring Authority a copy of the final document (preferably in Word -format) must be submitted to SFT validation team together with an estimate of timing of the next review.


631







Project Overview

Project title


Outline of scope of services in project (please identify services and who will provide those services)

Hard FM:

Soft FM:


Project Timetable NPR Submission: (NB: Record historic date)



Financial Close:


632








633



A) Please provide an update in respect of any outstanding Pre-NPR KSR recommendations and provide a reason for delay.




634

Section 3: Project Requirements The key objective of this section is to ensure that the proposed solution has been developed in sufficient technical detail, minimising the need for change in the run-up to financial close. Arrangements must be in place for anticipating, identifying and managing changes to the project during the tender process.


1. Have there been any changes to the scope of the project since the NPR was submitted? If so, please outline the changes, any impact on the affordability cap and the impact on the Stage 1 submission. Have these changes been signed off by the Project Sponsor?

2. Does the technical solution meet the expected sustainability standards? Is the space standard sustainable in accordance with relevant sector / programme level benchmarks?

3. Have the arrangements for joint service delivery been established? (if applicable)

4. Has the delivery of community benefits been established?

5. Are any aspects of the project scope intentionally unresolved because the Project Sponsor is actively seeking to discuss alternative approaches with hubCo and/or other user groups during Stage 2 development and have any anticipated implications in terms of, for example, affordability and timetable been assessed?

635

6. Are the appropriate approvals in place given the current stage of procurement? Are there control mechanisms and approval processes in place for identifying and managing changes to scope, costs and timescales during the remainder of the procurement process?

636

Section 4: Readiness The key objective of this section is to ensure that the arrangements for steering, resourcing and managing the project are robust and that the project is deliverable. This is intended to demonstrate that the project has firm foundations on which to continue, and that the project is operating within a clear decision making structure.


7. Have the relevant recommendations from the previous KSR been addressed?

8. Have there been any changes to the governance structure of the project since the NPR was submitted? If so, please outline the changes. Are any changes to the governance arrangements, project resourcing or budgets required for Stage 2?

9. Have stakeholder and statutory consultations been undertaken? Have any significant objections been addressed?

10. Is a deliverable land and planning strategy in place which includes details of outstanding surveys, acquisition activities, title issues, burdens, ground conditions and remedial/enabling works? Please provide an update on the current status of land/title/planning matters. Does the Project Sponsor have a strategy in place to manage the impact of any outstanding matters on the project timetable and affordability?

637

11. Has the status of any key risks identified in the risk management plan changed? Have mitigation strategies been implemented?

Has appropriate consideration been given to the following matters (to the extent applicable)? Is a clear position established regarding how these matters will be managed through Stage 2?:

12. - the scope, cost and timing of any enabling works that require to be carried out;

13. - the interface between the works within the project and the Procuring Authority’s other facilities and services (e.g. impact on use of adjoining facilities during construction phase);

14. - the interface between FM services to be included within the project and those for which the Procuring Authority will retain responsibility;

15. - the interface between design and the delivery of FM services (e.g. cleaning) and risks (e.g. energy consumption, security) retained by the Procuring Authority;

16. - through engagement with HR, the impact of the project on staff (including potential impact of TUPE legislation);

638



19. - termination / variation of any existing contractual arrangements related to the existing facilities.

20. Is the Procuring Authority satisfied that the outstanding interface issues described above can be resolved in a manner that will satisfy operational requirements?

639

Section 5: Commercial The key objective of this section is to ensure that the commercial issues have been sufficiently established, retained risks are understood and that the project sponsors are aware of any outstanding points.


21. What, if any, key commercial issues remain outstanding and how are the implications for the project programme and affordability position to be managed? Specifically, please outline what agreement, if any, has been reached in relation to the following matters:

22. - service specification

23. - payment mechanism (including levels of deductions, unavailability thresholds etc)

24. - warning notices and termination triggers

25. - asbestos (if appropriate)

26. - TUPE transfers (if appropriate)

27. Please confirm the status of the Procuring Authority’s title investigations, and whether a list of disclosed title conditions, and the impact of these conditions, has been agreed with hubCo.

640

28. Has a programme been produced by hubCo for the various due diligence processes required to reach financial close? Is this programme realistic and synchronised with the overall projected timescale to reach financial close?

641

Section 6: Affordability The key objective of this section is to allow the current affordability position of the project to be understood. The affordability position should be realistic and robust before approving the Stage 1 submission and be in accordance with the revenue funded programme requirements.


NPR Affordability Cap

£

Stage 1 Submission

£

Notes


Construction costs






Please also note the following project costs:

NPR Estimate £

Stage 1 Estimate £

Notes



1 It is expected that current costs will be based on hubCo Stage 1 submission

642


29. Is a robust project budget still in place? Is project affordability understood (including associated enabling capital costs and other ongoing operational costs (e.g. utilities, soft FM services)? Is the affordability cap still appropriate and in line with programme benchmarks? Is the proportionality of SG funding understood?

30. Please outline any major cost movements between the NPR cost estimates and the Stage 1 submission. Are current cost estimates in line with available benchmarks?

31. Has the Procuring Authority continued its efforts to discharge its obligation (as detailed in the SG conditions of funding letter dated 22 March 2011(Phase I) or 16/17 March 2013 (Phase III)) to minimise capital and operating costs by reference to design and specification development within the agreed project scope?

32. Does the Procuring Authority have clarity over all outstanding technical and design issues and have they evaluated their impact on the cost of the project?

33. Please outline any provisional sums included in the proposal. Have these sums been reviewed? Is there a plan in place to manage the risks associated with these sums during Stage 2?

643

34. Does the Procuring Authority intend to make any capital contributions to the sub-hubCo during the project? Provide details (including amount, proportion of total funding requirement and proposed timing).

35. Does the Procuring Authority intend to make an investment in the sub-hubCo? Provide details (including amount, proportion of total investment requirement and proposed timing).

36. Will the project meet the ESA95 test and be accounted for off balance sheet for National Accounts purposes?

37. Are arrangements in place to undertake a funding competition for the proposed funding route? Is a protocol is in place for tracking funding rates through the Stage 2 process to financial close?

644



38. Have benchmarks and comparator costs included in the Stage 1 submission been approved by the Project Sponsor? Does the Stage 1 submission demonstrate VfM?

645



39. Have all contract derogations required by the local authority, including any derogations provided by hubCo in the Stage 1 submission which the local authority accept, been signed off by SFT?

646



Yes.*





Date: Date:



647


648


Pre-Stage 2 Approval Key Stage Review


October 2014

Project Name: _________________________

649

Revenue Funded Projects Pre-Stage 2 Approval Key Stage Review

CONTENTS


1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2. Timing ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Process .................................................................................................................................... 3


1.5. Post Review ............................................................................................................................. 4





Section 5: Commercial .......................................................................................................................... 12




Project Sponsor

E.g. SGHD, SFC, TS

Procuring Authority


Project Team


650



1.2. Timing This review is required to be completed in advance of the Stage 2 submission being approved by the Procuring Authority.


In the run up to each review point, the Reviewer will inform and keep up-to-date the SFT Validation Team of the estimated timetable for carrying out the KSR. The validation team will arrange for a member of the SFT’s Senior Management Team (SMT) to scrutinise the checklist completed by the Reviewer before it can be submitted to the Project Sponsor and / or SG. The Reviewer should thereafter liaise directly with the allocated SMT member and must return a countersigned copy of the list to the Validation Team upon SMT sign-off.


The review is not intended to be a “stop-start” process and the Reviewer should refer to the checklist throughout each delivery stage so that all sections can be completed without delay to the project. The process involves the Reviewer completing this pro-forma checklist on the basis of information obtained in her/his day-to-day dealings with the project, considering whether in his or her view the project is ready to proceed to the next stage of procurement and making recommendations as to what actions may be required to achieve appropriate state of readiness. No formal submission, as such, will be required from the Procuring Authority, but the project team will be required to provide the Reviewer with information to allow her/him to complete the list and compile the report.

651



1.5. Post Review Once the review document has been agreed with the Procuring Authority a copy of the final document (preferably in Word-format) must be submitted to SFT validation team together with an estimate of timing of the next review

The Reviewer is responsible for updating the SMT member (or where SFT has a seat on the SPV Board, the relevant SFT representative) with progress made in accordance with the agreed follow-up plan.

652







Project Overview

Project title



Hard FM:

Soft FM:


Project Timetable NPR Submission: (NB: Record historic date)

Stage 1 Submission / Approval: (NB: Record historic date)


Financial Close:


653


Project Sponsor / SG Responsible Officer (name & contact details)





654



A) Please provide an update in respect of any outstanding Pre-Stage1 KSR recommendations and provide a reason for delay.




655

Section 3: Project Requirements The key objective of this section is to ensure that the project scope is clear, stable and deliverable and the required approvals are in place. Arrangements must be in place for anticipating, identifying and managing changes to the project during the construction phase.


1. Does the technical solution meet the expected sustainability standards? Is the space standard sustainable in accordance with relevant sector / programme level benchmarks?

2. Has the delivery of community benefits been agreed?

3. Are the appropriate approvals in place given the current stage of procurement? Are there control mechanisms and approval processes in place for identifying and managing changes to scope, costs and timescales during the construction phase?

656

Section 4: Readiness The key objective of this section is to ensure that the necessary resources for steering, supporting and managing the project during the construction and operational stages are in place and that the project team has a robust risk management strategy in place.. This is intended to demonstrate that the project has firm foundations on which to continue, and that the project is operating within a clear decision making structure.


4. Have the relevant recommendations from the previous KSR been addressed?

5. Have the key risks relating to successful completion of the project been assessed? Have the risks in relation to realising long term benefits been identified? Are mitigation measures in place?

6. Does the project team have the relevant authorisation and delegated powers in place to close the project?

7. Have governance, project management arrangements and a resourcing strategy been put in place to follow financial close, covering the construction, commissioning and operational phases?

Do job descriptions and the recruitment strategy consider, where applicable, the needs of the Procuring Authority in relation to the following:

8. - Performance monitoring;

9. - Life cycle expenditure;

657

10. - Safety inspection certification;

11. - Disaster management planning;

12. - Insurance renewals;

13. - User satisfaction surveys etc.;

14. - Post-occupancy evaluation;

15. - Refinancing;

16. - Major incident planning;

17. - Change requests;

18. - Benchmarking;

19. - Interface issues between the services provided by the Procuring Authority and any external service provider; and

20. - Use of external advisers.

21. Have steps been taken to ensure continuity of personnel and sharing of knowledge between phases?

22. How will performance monitoring be undertaken and how will it link back to the payment mechanism, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and project objectives?

658

23. Is a process in place for how project liaison and stakeholder communication will be undertaken?

659

Section 5: Commercial The key objective of this section is to ensure that commercial issues have been sufficiently resolved, retained risks are understood and that the project sponsors are aware of any outstanding points.


24. Have hubCo, its subcontractors and funders accepted the specification requirements and payment mechanism, signed up to the standard documentation and put back to back arrangements in place?

25. Are all required joint occupation and interface agreements in place and what steps have been undertaken to ensure that the service interfaces will operate in practice?

26. Has a programme been produced by hubCo for the various due diligence processes required to reach financial close? Is this programme realistic and synchronised with the overall projected timescale to reach financial close? Has the programme been agreed with funders?

660

Section 6: Affordability The key objective of this section is to allow the final affordability position of the project to be understood. The affordability position should be realistic and robust before approving the Stage 2 submission and be in accordance with the revenue funded programme requirements.


NPR Affordability Cap

£

Stage 1 Submission

£

Stage 2 Submission

£

Notes


Construction costs


Construction phase Insurance costs n/a n/a




Operation phase Insurance costs n/a n/a


Please also note the following internal project costs:

NPR Estimate £

Stage 1 Estimate £

Stage 2 Estimate £

Notes




1 It is expected that current costs will be based on hubCo Stage 2 submission

661

Please provide an outline of the following key items2:

Notes

LA Capital Contribution (£)

Capital Contribution (%) Per ESA95 Check Sheet


Percentage of unitary charge indexation (%)

Senior Debt Margin

Subordinated Debt Margin

Letter of Credit Costs

Bank Agency Fees

Blended equity IRR – Nominal

Estimated Swap Rate

Estimated Unitary Charge (year 1 of operations)

Estimated SG Funding Support (year 1 of operations)

Value of Subordinated Debt (£)

Participant Subordinated Debt Investment (%)

SFTI Subordinated Debt Investment (%)

2 It is expected that this information will either be included in hubCo Stage 2 submission or confirmed by the local authority

662


27. Please outline any major cost movements between the pre-Stage 1 cost estimates and the Stage 2 submission. Are current cost estimates in line with available benchmarks?

28. Have there been any major changes to the specification, space and performance standards and advice of the impact on affordability?

29. Does the project remain affordable taking account of the total project costs?

30. Have hubCo’s financial model and input assumptions for the project been checked and verified to ensure that they are in line with contractual caps and / or available benchmarks?

31. Has the tax efficiency of the financial model been evaluation?

32. Has the efficiency of the lifecycle maintenance fund and profile been evaluated?

33. Has the Procuring Authority continued its efforts to discharge its obligation (as detailed in the SG conditions of funding letter) to minimise capital and operating costs by reference to design and specification development within the agreed project scope?

663

34. Will the project meet the ESA95 test and be accounted for off balance sheet for National Accounts purposes?

35. Is the level of SG funding understood and agreed?

36. Is the proposed level of indexation reasonable and have sufficient sensitivities been undertaken to determine long term affordability for the local authority?

664



37. Have hubCo’s financial model and input assumptions for the project been checked and verified to ensure that they are in line with contractual caps and / or available benchmarks?

38. Is the project IRR compliant with the contract in terms of IRR levels and IRR sharing?

39. Have the payment mechanism and related notice thresholds been tested and calibrated to ensure best value and to incentivise good long term performance of the contract and have these been fully signed off by all contract parties?

665



40. Have all contract derogations required by the local authority, including any derogations provided by hubCo which the local authority accept, been signed off by SFT?

41. Have the proposed lenders to the project signed off the project documentation and agreements?

666



Yes.*





Date: Date:



667


668

Documents

Validation of Revenue Funded DRAFT - Scottish Futures … · Validation of Revenue Funded ... managing changes to the project during the tender process. ... these costs will be based